Peterson dropped in my league...As a commisioner is this the fairest w (1 Viewer)

[jb1020]

I'm glad I play in a league where none of us have morals ...

+1

As an AP owner I was noticeably happier yesterday when it was announced he'd play this week.

 

[VaTerp]

I agree in principle with not changing rules during the season, but there are unique situations that arise that can ruin the competitive balance of the league. I'm curious to know if this league has a can't cut list and why AP wasn't on it. You could treat it as a website error if people complain.

An owner can't dump his roster in week 12 because he's a sore loser, and this is a similar situation to me. Definitely tighten up the rules for next season but I wouldn't just sit there and do nothing in this case.

this is how i felt...only took 30 posts for someone to come out and say this...it is myfantasyleague league so no can't cut lists, $250 entry fee...it is a FAAB...still this is the way i felt

B.S.

An owner dumping his roster b/c he's a sore loser is a clear violation of written rules, at least it is in my leagues including the one I commish.

This is an owner doing what he feels is right for his team that he paid money to manage. Completely different. Just b/c it's a unique situation doesn't give the commish the power to unilaterally impose rules mid-season. That is a recipe for disaster.

I think there's plenty of room for the argument that in this case, he didn't run his team based on trying to make them competitive. If we have to come down to it is the measure that should be used whether it's someone dropping his entire roster to be a #### or a case like this.

I think asking the owner to trade the player rather than drop them is the best solution. If he says no, I don't think it would be wrong to then require that he trade him. But it should get input from the league first before it gets that far. Asking first is best. Make him realize his action is going to cause strife within your league, which is party to just further increasing the amount of harm done by Peterson's actions to a bunch of other owners in the league who don't deserve to have that happen to their league.

I don't really see the room for argument I guess. I have made my feelings well known in the Peterson thread so I actually think it's quite silly. But this is a serious issue that some people take personally. If a FF owner wants to drop a player because they think rostering them disagrees with something they feel that strongly about then I think you have to let them exercise their free will.

The league I commish has been together for over a decade and we all know each other. Nobody would do this so. But if they did I would do as you suggest and try to talk him out of it. If he insisted I would let things happen according to the rules in place and after the season we'd have a league vote that would likely result in them not remaining in the league.

 

[steelwind]

The team who owns Peterson has dropped him feeling that can't morally own him with what he has done

While I am fine if an owner wants to drop him and not have him on his team, I do not feel it is fair to the rest of the league to have one team be able to gain an advantage by picking him up

I decided to make Peterson "inactive" for the season were no team would be able to pick him up and use him

Any other people facing similar situation in their leagues???

What are other's thoughts?

If you had the #1 waiver I bet you would not have done this. And all of that is now in hindsight. This is something you should not have done. Perhaps hold a vote regarding this. It's just fantasy football. If he was dropped then it's fair game. Whoever wants him, put in a claim. If I was in your league I'd drop out because you just manipulated waiver rules.

 

[MattFancy]

Can't change the rules midseason.

as far as scoring, lineups, etc. go, I'd agree with this sentiment. but to say that you can never change a rule, or make a new one, during a season is ludicrous, IMO.

as an example, Josh Gordon was suspended for the year. the NFL then changed the rules midseason and he is no longer suspended. while all of this was up in the air, the commissioner made a rule that we couldn't add any player who was suspended for the year. he later decided to just keep Gordon ineligible all year as we didn't want our league decided by the timing of whenever the NFL decided to no longer keep him suspended for the year. rare occurrences like this call for decisions to be made and that's what a commish is for. if people don't trust their commish to make fair decisions, then they should get a new commish.

extreme situations like this call for a rules determination now, not next year. commish makes a call and the rule is on the books for future similar situations.

I think the only way you change a rule midseason is if you get a vast majority of the league to agree. I know in the leagues I'm in, the only way we agree to a midseason rule change is if the entire league agrees. I've seen some where 75% of the league has to agree. So, I guess should never changes rules is a little strong. But a Commish shouldn't just change a rule because he thinks it may give a team an advantage. If the league agrees with him, then change it. But if he's the only one that feels that way, he shouldn't change it.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

The team who owns Peterson has dropped him feeling that can't morally own him with what he has done

While I am fine if an owner wants to drop him and not have him on his team, I do not feel it is fair to the rest of the league to have one team be able to gain an advantage by picking him up

I decided to make Peterson "inactive" for the season were no team would be able to pick him up and use him

Any other people facing similar situation in their leagues???

What are other's thoughts?

My thought is that you suck as a commissioner

 

[jomar]

A few points: If your league allows owners to manage as they see fit, what do you do when a disgruntled owner drops his entire team? Do you really allow that?

This has been brought up twice now, but its really no analogous. That guy isn't "managing his team as he sees fit", he's purposely trying to disrupt the league and not acting in his teams best interest. That's where a commissioner HAS to step in - situations that are outside of the rules.

how is he acting in his teams best interest by cutting Peterson? is he losing sponsors?

 

[Chaka]

Ray Rice had to pass through waivers in the NFL after the Ravens cut him why shouldn't Peterson pass through waivers in your league?

 

[massraider]

A few points: If your league allows owners to manage as they see fit, what do you do when a disgruntled owner drops his entire team? Do you really allow that?

This has been brought up twice now, but its really no analogous. That guy isn't "managing his team as he sees fit", he's purposely trying to disrupt the league and not acting in his teams best interest. That's where a commissioner HAS to step in - situations that are outside of the rules.

how is he acting in his teams best interest by cutting Peterson? is he losing sponsors?

I'm going to reach out to the local pizza joint, I think I am missing out on a revenue stream.

 

[GregR]

By the way, if this happened in my leagues the commissioner/league would have grounds per the rules to act on it. We state in the rules that transactions must be conducted with the intent of improving the owner's team.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

A few points:

1. Peterson should not be made available on league waivers. He still has too much value given that he's currently playing and not suspended. If your league allows owners to manage as they see fit, what do you do when a disgruntled owner drops his entire team? Do you really allow that?

2. Leagues should have a can't cut list, but sometimes the software is not user-friendly for handling it and it's not automatic. In that case, the commissioner needs to use his judgement to prevent cuts that shouldn't happen.

3. A good commissioner adjusts to crazy scenarios like this one when the rules may not exist. That's the role - someone that runs the league in the best interest of fairness for the entire league. Why throw this guy out as commissioner? Allowing owners to cut top players like Peterson and have them go to waivers is NOT in the best interest of fairness for a fantasy league.

I would rule that the owner can't cut Peterson right now since he's currently not suspended and currently a top RB. He can trade him and I'm sure someone in the league will off awaer up something of value.

As long as the owner is paid up for this season and all paid up for future season draft picks that are traded away, let him drop his entire team. As a commish, you could see this coming a mile away and talk to him or boot him from the league. It isn't that hard a problem to solve

 

[Jules Winnfield]

Morals in a FF league?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

A few points: If your league allows owners to manage as they see fit, what do you do when a disgruntled owner drops his entire team? Do you really allow that?

This has been brought up twice now, but its really no analogous. That guy isn't "managing his team as he sees fit", he's purposely trying to disrupt the league and not acting in his teams best interest. That's where a commissioner HAS to step in - situations that are outside of the rules.

how is he acting in his teams best interest by cutting Peterson? is he losing sponsors?

Whether the commissioner agrees with his strategy is not the issue. The guy is doing what he wants for his team. He's not attempting to spite the league, like a guy dropping his entire roster. He doesn't want Peterson and would rather have some one else. Perhaps the guy he picks up, say Chris Rainey, goes on to have a huge season and the NFL steps in to suspend Peterson. Sure that would be a bad process with good results, but the guy should be able to apply "bad" process.

If he made a "bad" trade, in the commissioner's opinion, should the commissioner step in there as well.

If some one dropped Larry Fitzgerald for Allen Hurns after Week 1 (a trade that actually happened in one of my dynasty leagues), does the commissioner need to step in?

I don't want to act like I don't understand the other side here. I understand its a tough position for this commissioner to be in because one team is going to have some tremendous good luck fall into his lap and the rest of the league is going to be pissed. I just think overstepping one's authority as commissioner is the more egrecious way to go.

 

[sdp1226]

By the way, if this happened in my leagues the commissioner/league would have grounds per the rules to act on it. We state in the rules that transactions must be conducted with the intent of improving the owner's team.

This is great small print to add to the rule book.

 

[Freelove]

You get any group of ten or more people together for a five-month long adventure, at least one of them is going to be a dip#### who does something so stupid that it ruins it for everyone else. Reason number 5,163 to embrace weeklies, and to never, ever accept any position of authority.

I'd drop McCoy and think of myself like that Buddhist monk who set himself on fire.

 

[doowain]

@ those bashing the commish.

I see nothing wrong with locking Peterson. No other team should get an unfair advantage because some moron wants to take a moral stand (with no one to hear him).

 

[davearm]

A few points: If your league allows owners to manage as they see fit, what do you do when a disgruntled owner drops his entire team? Do you really allow that?

This has been brought up twice now, but its really no analogous. That guy isn't "managing his team as he sees fit", he's purposely trying to disrupt the league and not acting in his teams best interest. That's where a commissioner HAS to step in - situations that are outside of the rules.

how is he acting in his teams best interest by cutting Peterson? is he losing sponsors?

Whether the commissioner agrees with his strategy is not the issue. The guy is doing what he wants for his team. He's not attempting to spite the league, like a guy dropping his entire roster. He doesn't want Peterson and would rather have some one else. Perhaps the guy he picks up, say Chris Rainey, goes on to have a huge season and the NFL steps in to suspend Peterson. Sure that would be a bad process with good results, but the guy should be able to apply "bad" process.

If he made a "bad" trade, in the commissioner's opinion, should the commissioner step in there as well.

If some one dropped Larry Fitzgerald for Allen Hurns after Week 1 (a trade that actually happened in one of my dynasty leagues), does the commissioner need to step in?

I don't want to act like I don't understand the other side here. I understand its a tough position for this commissioner to be in because one team is going to have some tremendous good luck fall into his lap and the rest of the league is going to be pissed. I just think overstepping one's authority as commissioner is the more egrecious way to go.

The prevailing rule should be that every team/owner must act in his/her team's best interests.

The Peterson-dropping guy is making a transaction that is not in his/her team's best interests, unless he/she truly feels the best guy available on the waiver wire is going to be more valuable to his team than AP, *and* more valuable than anyone he could get for Peterson in a trade.

Absent that (clearly absurd) stance, the situation is really no different than the guy that dumps his roster out of frustration. Both are knowingly and intentionally making their roster worse.

 

[Chaka]

Whether the commissioner agrees with his strategy is not the issue. The guy is doing what he wants for his team. He's not attempting to spite the league, like a guy dropping his entire roster. He doesn't want Peterson and would rather have some one else. Perhaps the guy he picks up, say Chris Rainey, goes on to have a huge season and the NFL steps in to suspend Peterson. Sure that would be a bad process with good results, but the guy should be able to apply "bad" process.

If he made a "bad" trade, in the commissioner's opinion, should the commissioner step in there as well.

If some one dropped Larry Fitzgerald for Allen Hurns after Week 1 (a trade that actually happened in one of my dynasty leagues), does the commissioner need to step in?

I don't want to act like I don't understand the other side here. I understand its a tough position for this commissioner to be in because one team is going to have some tremendous good luck fall into his lap and the rest of the league is going to be pissed. I just think overstepping one's authority as commissioner is the more egrecious way to go.

Pretty much spot on across the board.

Trade in my league just happened (non-ppr, super-flex): Dez Bryant & Shane Vereen for Jake Locker & Trent Richardson (dude lost RGIII and is panicking). That is a terrible trade in any league format (IMO) but I know with 100% certainty it is not collusive in any way, it's just stupid so I voted in favor of letting the trade go through.

Sometimes people are just stupid and you don't really have a right to prevent them from being stupid. This is also why I only play in a league where I have known pretty much everyone for years.

 

[spider321]

You should refund the entry fee of the guy with the #1 waiver priority, and apologize to him profusely.

Despite your opinion, it is not your job as commissioner to change the rules.

 

[Soaring Eagle]

The team who owns Peterson has dropped him feeling that can't morally own him with what he has done

While I am fine if an owner wants to drop him and not have him on his team, I do not feel it is fair to the rest of the league to have one team be able to gain an advantage by picking him up

I decided to make Peterson "inactive" for the season were no team would be able to pick him up and use him

Any other people facing similar situation in their leagues???

What are other's thoughts?

If you had the #1 waiver I bet you would not have done this. And all of that is now in hindsight. This is something you should not have done. Perhaps hold a vote regarding this. It's just fantasy football. If he was dropped then it's fair game. Whoever wants him, put in a claim. If I was in your league I'd drop out because you just manipulated waiver rules.

faab budget - so fcfs doesn't matter...i also am not biased as this team is in my division and i play them twice including this week..so i am better off is they drop him and don't have him...still looking for the best interested of the league

 

[Soaring Eagle]

we have a solution - he was placed back on the team who doesn't want him who will entertain trade offers and take the best offer

 

[whiskey7]

Whether the commissioner agrees with his strategy is not the issue. The guy is doing what he wants for his team. He's not attempting to spite the league, like a guy dropping his entire roster. He doesn't want Peterson and would rather have some one else. Perhaps the guy he picks up, say Chris Rainey, goes on to have a huge season and the NFL steps in to suspend Peterson. Sure that would be a bad process with good results, but the guy should be able to apply "bad" process.

If he made a "bad" trade, in the commissioner's opinion, should the commissioner step in there as well.

If some one dropped Larry Fitzgerald for Allen Hurns after Week 1 (a trade that actually happened in one of my dynasty leagues), does the commissioner need to step in?

I don't want to act like I don't understand the other side here. I understand its a tough position for this commissioner to be in because one team is going to have some tremendous good luck fall into his lap and the rest of the league is going to be pissed. I just think overstepping one's authority as commissioner is the more egrecious way to go.

Pretty much spot on across the board.

Trade in my league just happened (non-ppr, super-flex): Dez Bryant & Shane Vereen for Jake Locker & Trent Richardson (dude lost RGIII and is panicking). That is a terrible trade in any league format (IMO) but I know with 100% certainty it is not collusive in any way, it's just stupid so I voted in favor of letting the trade go through.

Sometimes people are just stupid and you don't really have a right to prevent them from being stupid. This is also why I only play in a league where I have known pretty much everyone for years.

Terrible does not accurately describe how bad that trade is

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

With great value comes great risk. The Peterson owner should consider selling right now in any event because he could be suspended. Let the WW1 owner pick him up and take the risk, it's not your call to affect the league this way.

Btw just go to FAAB.

 

[Mr.Pack]

@ those bashing the commish.

I see nothing wrong with locking Peterson. No other team should get an unfair advantage because some moron wants to take a moral stand (with no one to hear him).

Yea, after reading everything, this was the conclusion I came to as well.

I am a commissioner and to protect the integrity of the league, I would lock him as well and hold a blind bid for him. My league is an Auction league so there really wouldn't be an issue, but for leagues that aren't Auction, I would still use some kid of a blind bid auction for him.

 

[sdp1226]

we have a solution - he was placed back on the team who doesn't want him who will entertain trade offers and take the best offer

This exact same scenario just played out in my league.

Dude drops AP, admits that it was not a move based on strategy but rather a moral dilemma, league goes berserk, AP added back to roster, owner entertains trade offers and AP was just now dealt to the Doug Martin owner straight up.

 

[VaTerp]

@ those bashing the commish.

I see nothing wrong with locking Peterson. No other team should get an unfair advantage because some moron wants to take a moral stand (with no one to hear him).

Yea, after reading everything, this was the conclusion I came to as well.

I am a commissioner and to protect the integrity of the league, I would lock him as well and hold a blind bid for him. My league is an Auction league so there really wouldn't be an issue, but for leagues that aren't Auction, I would still use some kid of a blind bid auction for him.

But that's not what the OP Commish said he would do.

He stated, "I decided to make Peterson "inactive" for the season were no team would be able to pick him up and use him."

That is an abuse of Commish powers and one that would be entirely unacceptable in the leagues I play in.

 

[meatwad1]

The team who owns Peterson has dropped him feeling that can't morally own him with what he has done

While I am fine if an owner wants to drop him and not have him on his team, I do not feel it is fair to the rest of the league to have one team be able to gain an advantage by picking him up

I decided to make Peterson "inactive" for the season were no team would be able to pick him up and use him

Any other people facing similar situation in their leagues???

What are other's thoughts?

Whoever has priority should get to pick him up.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

should a team have been forced to draft Vick when he was released from prison because at the time of that teams pick the commish thought he was the best value left at QB....?

some owners pass on drafting certain players for many reasons that have little to do with fantasy points......Randy Moss, Vick, etc.....why should being able to drop them be any different....?

IMO....there are two things you can do and one thing you shouldn't.........

Can Do:

1. you can let him do what he wants....let waivers play out.....it is what it is and you have something to discuss going into next season

2. you let the league HELP decide the best course of action.....with 100% in agreement (including WW #1 pick guy)....or you go back to #1 above....

Shouldn't Do:

1. make this type of decision on your own

 

[jomar]

Whether the commissioner agrees with his strategy is not the issue. The guy is doing what he wants for his team. He's not attempting to spite the league, like a guy dropping his entire roster. He doesn't want Peterson and would rather have some one else. Perhaps the guy he picks up, say Chris Rainey, goes on to have a huge season and the NFL steps in to suspend Peterson. Sure that would be a bad process with good results, but the guy should be able to apply "bad" process.

If he made a "bad" trade, in the commissioner's opinion, should the commissioner step in there as well.

If some one dropped Larry Fitzgerald for Allen Hurns after Week 1 (a trade that actually happened in one of my dynasty leagues), does the commissioner need to step in?

I don't want to act like I don't understand the other side here. I understand its a tough position for this commissioner to be in because one team is going to have some tremendous good luck fall into his lap and the rest of the league is going to be pissed. I just think overstepping one's authority as commissioner is the more egrecious way to go.

Pretty much spot on across the board.

Trade in my league just happened (non-ppr, super-flex): Dez Bryant & Shane Vereen for Jake Locker & Trent Richardson (dude lost RGIII and is panicking). That is a terrible trade in any league format (IMO) but I know with 100% certainty it is not collusive in any way, it's just stupid so I voted in favor of letting the trade go through.

Sometimes people are just stupid and you don't really have a right to prevent them from being stupid. This is also why I only play in a league where I have known pretty much everyone for years.

Terrible does not accurately describe how bad that trade is

I'd rather play in a league where the commish made up a rule on the spot to maintain league competitiveness than a league where a trade like this is allowed.

 

[Shawn]

This is why many sites have 'do not drop' lists. ADP would definitely fall into that category. Last I checked fantasy was about winning. And if some idiot wants to throw his first round pick away let him... it just ruins his chances for the playoffs. Ps. If he is dropping him because he is afraid he is gonna go to hell for starting Peterson, he may want to rethink his hobbies, last I checked gambling is frowned upon by the church too.

 

[Johnny Blood]

By the way, if this happened in my leagues the commissioner/league would have grounds per the rules to act on it. We state in the rules that transactions must be conducted with the intent of improving the owner's team.

This is great small print to add to the rule book.

Dropping a player to block an opponent might not be something you think improves your team. Improving your team and improving your record/seed/prospects are two different things. I'll harm my team to win a game, secure a playoff spot, etc. It's a good rule if changed to account for all that.

 

[Chaka]

Whether the commissioner agrees with his strategy is not the issue. The guy is doing what he wants for his team. He's not attempting to spite the league, like a guy dropping his entire roster. He doesn't want Peterson and would rather have some one else. Perhaps the guy he picks up, say Chris Rainey, goes on to have a huge season and the NFL steps in to suspend Peterson. Sure that would be a bad process with good results, but the guy should be able to apply "bad" process.

If he made a "bad" trade, in the commissioner's opinion, should the commissioner step in there as well.

If some one dropped Larry Fitzgerald for Allen Hurns after Week 1 (a trade that actually happened in one of my dynasty leagues), does the commissioner need to step in?

I don't want to act like I don't understand the other side here. I understand its a tough position for this commissioner to be in because one team is going to have some tremendous good luck fall into his lap and the rest of the league is going to be pissed. I just think overstepping one's authority as commissioner is the more egrecious way to go.

Pretty much spot on across the board.

Trade in my league just happened (non-ppr, super-flex): Dez Bryant & Shane Vereen for Jake Locker & Trent Richardson (dude lost RGIII and is panicking). That is a terrible trade in any league format (IMO) but I know with 100% certainty it is not collusive in any way, it's just stupid so I voted in favor of letting the trade go through.

Sometimes people are just stupid and you don't really have a right to prevent them from being stupid. This is also why I only play in a league where I have known pretty much everyone for years.

Terrible does not accurately describe how bad that trade is

I'd rather play in a league where the commish made up a rule on the spot to maintain league competitiveness than a league where a trade like this is allowed.

Everyone in our league gets a vote and the trade passed because we know it was stupid and not collusive. People should be allowed to be stupid. My only real problem, and I imagine this applies to my fellow owners as well, is that I didn't get to that guy first.

I would never play in a league where the commissioner had dictatorial authority and was not answerable to the owners. The NFL agrees with me on that one.

 

[Chaka]

I wonder how many of the "Everything must be completely fair" people vote that way in real life.

 

[massraider]

What if Rice gets reinstated?

 

[Hankmoody]

The team who owns Peterson has dropped him feeling that can't morally own him with what he has done

While I am fine if an owner wants to drop him and not have him on his team, I do not feel it is fair to the rest of the league to have one team be able to gain an advantage by picking him up

I decided to make Peterson "inactive" for the season were no team would be able to pick him up and use him

Any other people facing similar situation in their leagues???

What are other's thoughts?

If you had the #1 waiver I bet you would not have done this. And all of that is now in hindsight. This is something you should not have done. Perhaps hold a vote regarding this. It's just fantasy football. If he was dropped then it's fair game. Whoever wants him, put in a claim. If I was in your league I'd drop out because you just manipulated waiver rules.

faab budget - so fcfs doesn't matter...i also am not biased as this team is in my division and i play them twice including this week..so i am better off is they drop him and don't have him...still looking for the best interested of the league

we have a solution - he was placed back on the team who doesn't want him who will entertain trade offers and take the best offer

So this entire blankstorm was for naught? You have FAAB in place, which prevents any "one" team from getting an advantage,and instead "all" teams can get the advantage if they just bid enough.

And then you reverse it? This is priceless.

 

[MikeApf]

Ironically the Vikings have reversed course, and it now looks as if Peterson will be kept away from team activities for a longer period of time.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/17/vikings-place-adrian-peterson-on-commissioners-exempt-list-cant-participate-in-any-team-activities/

This further underscores the point that one should be very hesitant to step in and override the original rules. If you were looking for an initial workaround on the logic that AP still had value, then AP would have to have value for your ruling to be fair. Now it appears that he may have value, but he may not.

Therefore, fairest thing is to default to original rules and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Chapelboy]

How is this clearly an argument against traditional waivers? I'd be HOPING someone above me on the waiver list wastes their claim on AP.

This commissioner thinks AP still has large value and is using his own subjective player evaluations to make up rules on the fly.

I've been commissioning a dynasty league for many years. You cannot let your own opinions of a player's value cloud your decisions. No one knows what the future holds for AP's career; it's purely speculation at this point. If the owner doesn't want him, so be it. It's his choice. If someone wants to take the risk (and there is definitely a huge risk here, given the recent NFL witch hunting), let them. Done.

ETA: of course my league uses actual NFL player salaries, so another consideration would be his $14.4M cap hit should he be dropped and acquired.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Hopefully that guy completed the trade. Now what, the commissioner comes in and demands a trade he said had to be made, should now be reversed?

 

[MikeApf]

Hopefully that guy completed the trade. Now what, the commissioner comes in and demands a trade he said had to be made, should now be reversed?

Right. Thanks to this ruling, the guy who traded for Peterson is quite likely shafted, when otherwise he would not have been.

 

[shadyridr]

we have a solution - he was placed back on the team who doesn't want him who will entertain trade offers and take the best offer

This exact same scenario just played out in my league.Dude drops AP, admits that it was not a move based on strategy but rather a moral dilemma, league goes berserk, AP added back to roster, owner entertains trade offers and AP was just now dealt to the Doug Martin owner straight up.

i betcha that guy that went beserk feels like a ####### moron now

 

[Godsbrother]

Hopefully that guy completed the trade. Now what, the commissioner comes in and demands a trade he said had to be made, should now be reversed?

Right. Thanks to this ruling, the guy who traded for Peterson is quite likely shafted, when otherwise he would not have been.

Which is what I said earlier in the thread.

 

[montana_grizzly_bears]

Kind of funny reading this post now, but I was able to throw Peterson into a trade I made over the weekend along with Cutler to get Calvin Johnson. Very last question that was sent in an IM was "you do understand that Peterson may or may not play again this year" just to be sure and cover my own backside in case this very thing happened. The guy answered that he understands but he needs Cutler more than he needs Peterson so it would take the risk. Every email and IM is saved and can be produced for the commissioners if they need it. (I don't think they will ask, but it is there if they do).

As far as the original question- Peterson should have been able to be dropped whenever wanted. I don't agree with the person just dropping him not attempting to trade, but a commissioner should not have to force a trade or make anyone do something with their team they do not want. Things always end up evening out in the end anyway.

 

[bonscott]

I agree in principle with not changing rules during the season, but there are unique situations that arise that can ruin the competitive balance of the league. I'm curious to know if this league has a can't cut list and why AP wasn't on it. You could treat it as a website error if people complain.

An owner can't dump his roster in week 12 because he's a sore loser, and this is a similar situation to me. Definitely tighten up the rules for next season but I wouldn't just sit there and do nothing in this case.

this is how i felt...only took 30 posts for someone to come out and say this...it is myfantasyleague league so no can't cut lists, $250 entry fee...it is a FAAB...still this is the way i felt

Just FYI that MFL has a can't cut list and has for a few years now. None of my leagues use it but it's in the commish setup.

 

[belljr]

So serious question.....what if this was say Jeremy Maclin or cj spiller. Would you change the rule?

 

[montana_grizzly_bears]

No you allow the waiver to go through. You intruding on the rules that you set up as a league does more damage than the person making a "dumb" move in my opinion. Why even set up the rules if you aren't going to follow them.

 

[habsfan]

As a commish who has worked fairly extensively on our league bylaws, It's not easy to avoid building rules on top of some of the fantasy platitudes that get thrown around like "competitive balance of the league" or "integrity of the league".

Everyone thinks they know exactly what these phrases mean and they look great on paper until something specific happens (like Peterson). All of a sudden you're stuck having to actually unpack these statements in order to take action on a situation and more often than not, you have a problem.

 

[Chapelboy]

Here's how the FPC is handling it. seems the way to go.

[SIZE=9pt]Hi all,

In anticipation of tonight’s waivers, we want to address Adrian Peterson’s placement on the NFL’s exempt/commissioner’s permission list and his fluctuating situation, specifically our ruling on him should he be released by any FFPC players. As FFPC commissioners, and in accordance to the posted FFPC league rules, we do have the right to lock any player that is wa ived in order to keep the competitive balance of the FFPC Main Event, Footballguys Players Championship and all other ancillary leagues.

Having said that, we have concluded that we will not be locking Adrian Peterson in any leagues where he is waived. He would then be locked for Friday waivers and be on the open market for acquisition in those leagues during the next available waiver period, which is next Wednesday.

Here is why we have made this decision:

With his placement on the NFL’s exempt/commissioner’s permission list, Peterson's fantasy value is reduced significantly from where it was before the regular season started, and he would no longer be a first round pick in the majority of our leagues, or potentially even an eighth round pick if a draft was held today. By comparison, Josh Gordon is a good example of a very talented player that was permitted to be drafted or acquired in waivers in a similar situation dealing with a suspension.

Much of the skill in managing fantasy teams is making tough decisions with incomplete information. Perhaps the Peterson owner in a league keeps him. Maybe he cuts him to offload the risk and open a roster spot. Likewise, maybe an owner in a league wants to spend his whole budget on Adrian Peterson2C hold the risk for multiple weeks and possibly get nothing at all in return.

A substantial number of fantasy owners could willingly drop Peterson to free up a roster spot and reduce their risks, yet other owners could add him to their rosters and take on that same risk. Those decisions are part of the skill of playing fantasy. If Peterson does not return this season, anyone that kept or acquired him will have either wasted a roster spot or free agent bidding in making the incorrect decision. However if he does indeed return, the players that kept Peterson along with anyone that acquires him will rightly benefit for making the correct decision if that scenario played out.

We prefer that our leagues and contests won by owners and their skillful decisions. We do not want to remove the skill element by commissioner-imposed decisions.

We do not lock players that are being actively released across multiple leagues due to those players’ reduced fantasy value. The lock clause in our rules was drawn up for the ability to lock players that are incorrectly or suspiciously cut to reduce any potential instances of collusion. This is an extremely rare occurrence and if it ever happens, it is generally one star player cut in one league out more than a thousand leagues.

We wanted to notify all FFPC team owners in advance of waivers so that all of our players are aware and able to manage their teams and players with full knowledge of where we stand on this situation. Best of luck with your bids tonight.


Sincerely,
Dave Gerczak
The FFPC [/SIZE]

 

[Johnny Blood]

Hopefully that guy completed the trade. Now what, the commissioner comes in and demands a trade he said had to be made, should now be reversed?

"competitive balance"

"fair"

"league integrity"

 

[GreenBaySnackers]

Ha, now in know why ESPN has an undroppable players list feature.

 

[tunamelt warrior]

Here's how the FPC is handling it. seems the way to go.

[SIZE=9pt]Hi all, [/SIZE]

In anticipation of tonight’s waivers, we want to address Adrian Peterson’s placement on the NFL’s exempt/commissioner’s permission list and his fluctuating situation, specifically our ruling on him should he be released by any FFPC players. As FFPC commissioners, and in accordance to the posted FFPC league rules, we do have the right to lock any player that is wa ived in order to keep the competitive balance of the FFPC Main Event, Footballguys Players Championship and all other ancillary leagues.

Having said that, we have concluded that we will not be locking Adrian Peterson in any leagues where he is waived. He would then be locked for Friday waivers and be on the open market for acquisition in those leagues during the next available waiver period, which is next Wednesday.

Here is why we have made this decision:

With his placement on the NFL’s exempt/commissioner’s permission list, Peterson's fantasy value is reduced significantly from where it was before the regular season started, and he would no longer be a first round pick in the majority of our leagues, or potentially even an eighth round pick if a draft was held today. By comparison, Josh Gordon is a good example of a very talented player that was permitted to be drafted or acquired in waivers in a similar situation dealing with a suspension.

Much of the skill in managing fantasy teams is making tough decisions with incomplete information. Perhaps the Peterson owner in a league keeps him. Maybe he cuts him to offload the risk and open a roster spot. Likewise, maybe an owner in a league wants to spend his whole budget on Adrian Peterson2C hold the risk for multiple weeks and possibly get nothing at all in return.

A substantial number of fantasy owners could willingly drop Peterson to free up a roster spot and reduce their risks, yet other owners could add him to their rosters and take on that same risk. Those decisions are part of the skill of playing fantasy. If Peterson does not return this season, anyone that kept or acquired him will have either wasted a roster spot or free agent bidding in making the incorrect decision. However if he does indeed return, the players that kept Peterson along with anyone that acquires him will rightly benefit for making the correct decision if that scenario played out.

We prefer that our leagues and contests won by owners and their skillful decisions. [SIZE=9pt]We do not want to remove the skill element by commissioner-imposed decisions. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt] [/SIZE]

We do not lock players that are being actively released across multiple leagues due to those players’ reduced fantasy value. The lock clause in our rules was drawn up for the ability to lock players that are incorrectly or suspiciously cut to reduce any potential instances of collusion. This is an extremely rare occurrence and if it ever happens, it is generally one star player cut in one league out more than a thousand leagues.

We wanted to notify all FFPC team owners in advance of waivers so that all of our players are aware and able to manage their teams and players with full knowledge of where we stand on this situation. Best of luck with your bids tonight.

Sincerely,

Dave Gerczak

The FFPC

[SIZE=9pt]"We do not want to remove the skill element by commissioner-imposed decisions."[/SIZE] Ah, the "age-old" let owners manage their teams without commissioner interference. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[SproutDaddy]

The league I have him in won't let me drop him. We only have 5 bench spots, and I wan't to pick up Jeremy Hill. I don't think Peterson plays again this year as of now. If he does, it won't be until November.